How does the discrete stochasticity in probabilistic cellular automata differ mechanistically from quantum randomness?

This is a genuinely interesting question—and one the archive engages with thoughtfully, though it doesn't offer a complete mechanical answer.

The distinction in one sentence

Probabilistic cellular automata generate randomness through *classical stochastic rules applied locally across space and time*, whereas quantum randomness emerges from *irreducible indeterminacy in the state itself* once measured.

What the preprints reveal

The archive contains a surprising finding: these two sources of randomness are more intertwined than they appear. Several papers argue that quantum mechanics itself can be reconstructed from properly structured classical stochastic systems.

The key insight comes from [AG-2024.08-616], which shows that quantum systems—including a single qubit and a particle in a harmonic potential—can emerge as *subsystems* of larger classical probabilistic distributions. The mechanism is striking: you define a classical probability distribution over all possible configurations and histories, assign them real-valued weights (not complex amplitudes), and when you trace out most of the system, the remaining subsystem exhibits unitary quantum evolution. This is presented as a "proof that no-go theorems" preventing such embeddings are incomplete—meaning quantum randomness may not be fundamentally distinct from classical stochasticity at a deeper level.

More concretely, [AG-2024.05-2105] studies probabilistic cellular automata with random scattering rules and shows they exhibit quintessentially quantum features: periodic revivals of initial states and wave-function descriptions, despite evolving via classical stochastic updates. The authors emphasize that these automata don't just *mimic* quantum behavior—the mathematical structure genuinely supports quantum-like statistical observables (momentum, energy) that have no definite values in individual configurations, "with a conceptual status similar to temperature."

The mechanistic gap

However, this archive does *not* explain what mechanistically differs in the moment of measurement or observation. The discrete stochasticity in a cellular automaton is transparent: each cell's next state depends on a local random draw. Quantum randomness, by contrast, appears to require measurement *interaction* with the system. The preprints suggest these may be two views of the same underlying structure, but they don't spell out whether the distinction is ultimately real or merely a difference in perspective.

One related empirical fact: [AG-2024.01-1791] tested whether IBM quantum computers actually generate true randomness (as theory predicts) versus pseudo-randomness. The result was sobering—only one of nine systems passed statistical tests—suggesting that even implementing quantum randomness in practice is mechanically subtle.

The provided preprints don't directly address what *fails to transfer* from cellular automata to genuine quantum systems, or conversely, what property of quantum measurement breaks the classical analogy.